RE: [Star Trek Books] Doctor Who
- Why couldnt Chris Eccleston and the bbc have waited afew more weeks to
announce that there was going to a change in the doctor's appearence. from
I think its going to effect views I mean from where I look at it. A Week
ago I really enjoyed Doctor who and was looking forward to every episode.
But now I'm thinking well
a. The BBC should have the main actors sign a contract for 6 years like
I've heard they do with the main actors for Star Trek!
b. I'm now thinking twice about watching the rest of the remaing 12
parts to Doctor who because I dont see the point.
c. Chris Eccleston has shot himself in the foot I dont think he
would get type casted . he has upset the fans too.
some how i've got a bad feeling Doctor who is no going to rememberd as
the actor who quit before the show even aired its second episode
- On Friday, April 1, 2005, Sian wrote:
> a. The BBC should have the main actors sign a contract for 6 years likeEccleston is under contract for a second season. He's just said he
> I've heard they do with the main actors for Star Trek!
won't do it. The BBC -could- force Eccleston to fulfill the terms of
his contract, but why have a leading man who doesn't want to be there?
"Who decides," Kenyon said, "what is right?"
"The gods. I just do my best to interpret."
"And do you truly believe in gods, Mackenzie Calhoun? Do you?"
"I believe in myself. That's generally been good enough."
-- Peter David, "Once Burned"
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Allyn Gibson <allyn@a...>
> On Friday, April 1, 2005, Sian wrote:years like
> > a. The BBC should have the main actors sign a contract for 6
> > I've heard they do with the main actors for Star Trek!of
> Eccleston is under contract for a second season. He's just said he
> won't do it. The BBC -could- force Eccleston to fulfill the terms
> his contract, but why have a leading man who doesn't want to bethere?
>Well, television has a sort of history of it though. Pierce Brosnan
couldn't take the James Bond role the first time it was offered to
him because NBC held him to his contract for more "Remington Steele"
episodes (or was it TV movie/specials that last season?). And
Farrah Fawcett was actually taken to court by ABC for breaking her
contract on "Charlies Angels" back in the 1970s. The result there
was a settlement that Fawcett was released from her contract as a
regular cast member but had to appear in several guest-appearances
over the following seasons of the series.
* Currently Reading:
* Just Read: Starman: A Wicked Inclination... (Robinson, Harris, Von
Grawbadger, et al.)
(What else? Check out my homepage,
- On Friday, April 1, 2005, David wrote:
> Well, television has a sort of history of it though.Yes, but British television is produced in a completely different
manner than American television. I can't understand how it
can take the BBC nine months to produce thirteen half-hour episodes of
Doctor Who--that was one of Eccleston's reasons for leaving, the
grueling nine-month production schedule. An American drama usually
has a seven or eight-day shooting schedule per episode, so thirteen
episodes should take no more than four or five months to produce.
Were Doctor Who made on an American schedule, Eccleston would still
have been free seven or eight months out of the year to pursue other
work. There's something very inefficient about the British model.
As long as it's not that terribly depressing one about the chap who
gets born on Christmas Day, shoots his mouth off about everything
under the sun, and then comes a cropper with a couple of rum coves
on top of a hill in Johnny Arab land.
-- Prince George, Blackadder's Christmas Carol